- Ford Motor told employees in an internal communication that it had taken “a fresh look” at its DEI policies and practices over the past year.
- Following that review, the automaker said it will not use quotas for minority dealerships or suppliers, adding that it does not have hiring quotas.
- The company also will stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, as well as various other “best places to work” lists.
I, for one, am shocked that the company founded by GREAT AMERICAN Henry Ford would be against the ideas of things like diversity, equity or inclusion. I know that the PATRIOT Henry Ford would definitely be in favor of those things, but the Jews would never let him tell anyone.
Hello fellow Jew! Would you like to join me in suppressing Henry Ford’s positive views on race relations? We might even have time to work our way reverse-alphabetically through Edison, Disney, and Dahl.
DEI stands for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
It’s the latest anti-sjw boogeyman
It doesn’t matter who you hire when you are just going to lay them off and beg the government for money anyway.
Sure, how does this apply to Ford, though?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/business/ford-layoffs/index.html
Ford has layoffs pretty much yearly.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/business/ford-department-of-energy-loan/index.html
Ford gets money from the government.
Repeat ad infinitum.
There’s a big difference between receiving money as a loan to do something the government wants (in this case, build electric vehicles) and begging the government for money because you’re broke. During the recession Ford was notable for being the only major American car company that didn’t ask for a bailout. Their American employee headcount fluctuates year to year but it’s up over the last decade btw.
They are reneging and pivoting towards hybrids.
Demand in the US just isn’t there for EVs – the market is mostly saturated. That’s why Tesla is having trouble, too.
I don’t think that’s the only reason Tesla is having trouble…
Oh, so the government doing its job to incentivize the market to move in positive directions and closures which are highly coordinated and agreed to by the union are bad now? Lemmy, never change.
CNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CNBC:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/28/ford-joins-list-of-companies-walking-back-dei-policies.html
Nobody should have quotas for hiring based on characteristics that are unchangeable. Hiring should be based on ability and skill. Interviews should be conducted blindly and the interviewers should be required to be diverse to avoid bias.
I think it’s worth picking this apart a bit to show just how complicated it all is. Your motivation seems right, but there’s an inherent contradiction in your suggestion. One of the purposes of DEI best practices is to have BIPOC people in the room at all levels of the organization, in decision-making roles, and normal worker roles. It helps everyone feel welcome, heard, and equal. Often this feeling is intangible but has very real impacts on how works gets done, how coworkers interact with each other, and how satisfied the workforce is. If you have a meeting full of diverse staff, its much less likely that the white folks will spew microaggressions and make everyone else uncomfortable.
That means yes, interviewers should absolutely be diverse themselves, because they’ll typically hire a more diverse workforce. But how do you suggest that we require interviewers be diverse to avoid bias? We need DEI training and enforceable policies for that. So we’re stuck in a vicious cycle.
I’m far from an expert, but I don’t feel preference to one group over another is the purpose of DEI. I think we can look at this a few ways and have that make sense.
I watched a video discussing DEI this morning, and it pointed out that these for-profit companies, run by wealthy individuals, would not be doing DEI to begin with if it didn’t have tangible benefits. Some of it can be the moral equivalent of greenwashing, but what business of any size would say, no, I don’t want to hire the best person, I need more X people instead? That would only be sabotaging yourself.
Well what benefits do employers get from DEI? If a talented person from a minority group is looking for work, and they had their choice of places to work, would they pick a place with a monoculture, or one that is making an effort to show they are welcoming to people of all backgrounds? If they take a job that embraces people of all walks of life, they’ll also retain those people as they won’t feel like someone who’s only there to check a box on a list of hiring requirements. If they hire people that went to the best schools in Europe, China, India, etc. they’re getting ideas and innovation from all over the world.
I’m at my second pharmaceutical job, and both facilities hire the best people they can from around the world. At both places, I’m the only white person on my team. It obviously did not impair me getting hired and I’ve never felt treated better or worse than anyone else. But I have greatly expanded my horizons from getting to know people from the other places and cultures. I’ve been able to give them different perspectives on things as well.
I wouldn’t want to get a job just because I was white more than anyone would want to get a job purely because they weren’t. I couldn’t imagine somewhere like that would be a place that I wanted to be at for very long. But being at places where I see everybody no matter who they are getting treated the same lets me see there’s at least some level of fairness going on. So DEI isn’t something to give something to some particular someone and not somebody else, it’s just to make sure everyone is getting something where that’s possible. It’s not a quota system, but a desire to prevent becoming one.